Symposium on the Privacy International Litigation, Centre for Public Law, Cambridge, October 20, 2018

On Saturday, October 20, the Centre for Public Law at the University of Cambridge, is hosting a symposium on the Privacy International litigation. Those interested in attending should email me. Contributors will also be writing short blog posts summarising their presentations, for the Administrative Law in the Common Law World blog.

As regular readers will know (see here, here and here), Privacy International has brought judicial review proceedings against the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in respect of the Tribunal’s treatment of a complaint about computer hacking by GCHQ. At first instance ([2017] EWHC 114 (Admin)) and on appeal ([2017] EWCA Civ 1868), it has been held that judicial review of the Tribunal is precluded by the ouster clause contained in s. 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath and Lord Lloyd-Jones) will hear Privacy International’s appeal in December.

Here is the draft programme:

Panel 1: The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, 9.30 to 11.00

Objective: to discuss the role and function of the Tribunal, the issues raised by Privacy International’s complaint, the problems created by litigation over sensitive matters of national security and the procedural solutions available in judicial review proceedings touching on sensitive issues

  • The Functions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Dr Tom Hickman, University College London)
  • Data Privacy: European and British Perspectives (Dr Nora Ní Loideain, Institute for Advanced Legal Studies)
  • Procedural Issues: Confidentiality in Judicial Review Proceedings (Martin Chamberlain QC, Brick Court Chambers)

Panel 2: The Legitimacy of Ouster Clauses, 11.15-13.00

Objective: to discuss the reasons the drafters and enactors of legislation might choose to make provision for an ouster clause, the unique circumstances presented by ouster of review of tribunal decision-making, and whether ouster of judicial review can ever be justified

  • Why Might Parliament Enact an Ouster Clause? (Dr Joe Tomlinson, King’s College London)
  • Ouster Clauses and the Separation of Powers (Mr Robert Craig, Durham Law School)
  • Ouster Clauses and the Rule of Law (Professor Christopher Forsyth, University of Cambridge)
  • Respecting Parliamentary Choice (Professor Aileen Kavanagh, University of Oxford)

Sandwich Lunch, 13.00-14.00

Panel 3: Interpreting Ouster Clauses, 14.00-16.00

Objectives: to discuss the interpretative techniques courts might legitimately bring to bear on ouster clauses, drawing on comparative perspectives, constitutional fundamentals and historical practice

  • Balancing Access to Justice and the Public Interest (Dr Hayley Hooper, Christ Church College, Oxford)
  • Ouster Clauses in Comparative Perspective (Dr Paul Daly, University of Cambridge)
  • A Bayesian Approach to Statutory Interpretation (Dr Adam Perry, University of Oxford)
  • Statutory Interpretation and Constitutional Fundamentals (Professor Alison Young, University of Cambridge)
  • The Cart Solution and the Limits of Constitutional Creativity (Dr Joanna Bell, St John’s College, Cambridge)

This content has been updated on October 1, 2018 at 10:18.